Bloomberg as an Independent in 2008??

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I realize this is a short article and it's purely speculation but could bring an interesting dynamic to the 2008 presidential elections. I had no idea who Bloomberg was until this article and have been reading about him and his views; from what I can tell he sounds like an ideal 3rd party candidate for the election based on his views. I will conceed that mayoral experience is limited and seems very similar to Rudy. Keep in mind he would only consider a run if extremists are nominated on both sides.

Personally I hesitant to endorse a Republican because of their poor fiscal management over the last 6 years (this should not be rewarded) but the Democrats I wanted (Warner, Bayh) aren't running. All the people in the race seem to have a significant policy flaw I just cannot seem to support.

Bloomberg's views
A Republican who's legacy was effective education reform, suports legal same-sex marriage, implemented smoking bans in bars/clubs, banned trans-fat from restaurants, endorses rights of illegal immigrants, reduced crime, supports gun control, set aside a retiree health fund, raised taxes after 9/11 to stabilize finances, record surpluses, aggressive economic development strategy, focus on poverty reduction, increased funding for affordable housing.

Now that's a Republican I would be more than willing to support (especially as an independent) :thumbsup:

link
ABC News' Gary Langer Reports: At an event last night sponsored by the New York Chapter of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Ester Fuchs - a Columbia University professor and, until recently, an adviser to New York Mayor Bloomberg - speculated that Bloomberg would run for president as an independent if both parties nominated candidates from their "extreme wings."

The example she gave was Romney and Edwards. With those two as their parties' nominees, she said, it was, in her view, "80 percent probable" that Bloomberg would run. He'd have to be convinced that there was enough space between the two nominees for an independent to drive through.

Clearly this was Fuchs' own hunch, not any approved pronouncement. But she is in a position to know something about Bloomberg's thinking. She was his "special adviser for governance and strategic planning" in his first term, then served on his re-election campaign as policy adviser for the second-term agenda, and was appointed by Bloomberg to serve as chair of the city's Charter Revision Commission.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Forbes on Bloomberg

Worth: $5.5billion
Education: Johns Hopkins University, Bachelor of Arts / Science, Harvard University, Master of Business Administration
Mayor Mike is New York City's guiding political force; dropped $85 million in 2005 mayoral election, 9 times what opponent Fernando Ferrer spent. Bloomberg LP thriving on strong demand for data terminals at hedge funds. Revenue now exceed $4 billion. News service also growing; hiring new reporters. Donated $150 million to charity in past year; plans to sell company once out of office and give away entire fortune.

:thumbsup:
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Bloomberg doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning, he'd be lucky to even get John Anderson c. 1980 numbers. This is another Ross-Perot type of billionaire ego run.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
banned trans-fat from restaurants, endorses rights of illegal immigrants, supports gun control

Three reasons he would have a hard time getting elected.
The trans-fat ban is stupid, plain and simple nannyism.
Rights for the illegals wouldn't fly with many people including myself.
And gun control is a big no-no for winning the south.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
banned trans-fat from restaurants, endorses rights of illegal immigrants, supports gun control
Three reasons he would have a hard time getting elected.
The trans-fat ban is stupid, plain and simple nannyism.
Rights for the illegals wouldn't fly with many people including myself.
And gun control is a big no-no for winning the south.
According to the other thread it sounds like Americans vote for the personality and trustworthiness of the leader not minor issues.

All of his stances are very reasonable and defendable when push comes to shove.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
Bloomburg is a badass and has been great for NYC. I would vote for him over Guliani even.

Socially moderate/progressive and very fiscally responsible. Doesn't take $hit from even NYCs unions.:thumbsup:
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Hafen
Bloomburg is a badass and has been great for NYC. I would vote for him over Guliani even.

Socially moderate/progressive and very fiscally responsible. Doesn't take $hit from even NYCs unions.:thumbsup:
Badass '08 :cool:
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
banned trans-fat from restaurants, endorses rights of illegal immigrants, supports gun control
Three reasons he would have a hard time getting elected.
The trans-fat ban is stupid, plain and simple nannyism.
Rights for the illegals wouldn't fly with many people including myself.
And gun control is a big no-no for winning the south.
According to the other thread it sounds like Americans vote for the personality and trustworthiness of the leader not minor issues.

All of his stances are very reasonable and defendable when push comes to shove.

Trustworthiness certainly is a trait to look for in a leader, but not what a person should vote for alone.
I thought the whole idea of a representative democracy was that you should vote for someone who claims to represent your ideas and beliefs. Of course leave it to us to turn the whole thing into a giant highschool popularity contest.
*shrug*

 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
banned trans-fat from restaurants, endorses rights of illegal immigrants, supports gun control
Three reasons he would have a hard time getting elected.
The trans-fat ban is stupid, plain and simple nannyism.
Rights for the illegals wouldn't fly with many people including myself.
And gun control is a big no-no for winning the south.
According to the other thread it sounds like Americans vote for the personality and trustworthiness of the leader not minor issues.

All of his stances are very reasonable and defendable when push comes to shove.
Trustworthiness certainly is a trait to look for in a leader, but not what a person should vote for alone.
I thought the whole idea of a representative democracy was that you should vote for someone who claims to represent your ideas and beliefs. Of course leave it to us to turn the whole thing into a giant highschool popularity contest.
*shrug*
I guess you just have to assume there's an equal number of morons on both sides :)
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,949
3
76
I figure this is bumpable since he recently renounced his republican affiliation.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
I wouldn't vote for him because he tries to take firearms out of legal owners hands. BUT, I think it would be great to see more major independant party runners. Plus anyone will be better then Hilary or Obama.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I'm sure someone will quote me on this and make me look like a fool in a few months, but right now, I believe him when he says he's not running for president (though maybe senate if hillary wins?)
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: TallBill
I wouldn't vote for him because he tries to take firearms out of legal owners hands. BUT, I think it would be great to see more major independant party runners. Plus anyone will be better then Hilary or Obama.

Yeah. He also illegally went after out of state gun dealers and got scolded by the BATFE for doing so.

Most non-americans don't realize that a large pecentage of gun owners are single issue voters. If I had to choose between an otherwise great candidate who wanted to regulate guns in any way, and a terrible candidate who didn't believe in gun control, I'd take the terrible candidate every time.

Fred Thompson is the only candidate who's good on guns. The rest range from bad (Mit Romney, Rudy Guliani) to worse (Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama.)
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Yeah. He also illegally went after out of state gun dealers and got scolded by the BATFE for doing so.Yeah. He also illegally went after out of state gun dealers and got scolded by the BATFE for doing so.

Most non-americans don't realize that a large pecentage of gun owners are single issue voters. If I had to choose between an otherwise great candidate who wanted to regulate guns in any way, and a terrible candidate who didn't believe in gun control, I'd take the terrible candidate every time.

Fred Thompson is the only candidate who's good on guns. The rest range from bad (Mit Romney, Rudy Guliani) to worse (Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama.)

Why would gun regulation be bad? Is it a bad thing to make gun distributers more accountable? Should known criminals be able to purchase guns on a whim? Would you not feel safter if Assault Rifles and Semi Automatics were taken off the streets?

I don't think Bloomberg is targeting law abiding farmer Joe who owns a shotgun and a small pistol here. He's out to get organized crime, people who use these weapons to terrorize neighborhoods and kill our brave men and women in the police force.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
I think the question with Bloomberg is who does he hurt more?

Is her Perot hurting the Republican or Nader hurting the Democrat.
I don?t think he can win though, to many people will vote for their party and I don?t think he could get enough votes down the middle.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the question with Bloomberg is who does he hurt more?

Is her Perot hurting the Republican or Nader hurting the Democrat.
I don?t think he can win though, to many people will vote for their party and I don?t think he could get enough votes down the middle.

Of course Bloomberg is going to hurt Democrats more. Pro Gun Control, Environmentally friendly, Proactive Health Care, Smoking Ban. He's a liberal.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: Hacp

Why would gun regulation be bad? Is it a bad thing to make gun distributers more accountable? Should known criminals be able to purchase guns on a whim? Would you not feel safter if Assault Rifles and Semi Automatics were taken off the streets?

I don't think Bloomberg is targeting law abiding farmer Joe who owns a shotgun and a small pistol here. He's out to get organized crime, people who use these weapons to terrorize neighborhoods and kill our brave men and women in the police force.

Known criminals are not able to legally purchase firearms. I have a whole closet full of "Assault Rifles and Semi Automatics".

The criminals in America are predominantly using illegally obtained firearms, so why try to take them from legal citizens? And organized crime or gangs almost exclusively use illegally purchased firearms.

Neighborhoods are being "terrorized" because law abiding citizens are losing their right to legally obtain a firearm to defend themselves against criminals.

Passing more laws will not stop the criminals because they are already criminals. Instead it will just take away more rights from the law abiding citizens.

I really don't know where most of the anti-gun crowd gets its info but its dead wrong.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Known criminals are not able to legally purchase firearms. I have a whole closet full of "Assault Rifles and Semi Automatics".

The criminals in America are predominantly using illegally obtained firearms, so why try to take them from legal citizens? And organized crime or gangs almost exclusively use illegally purchased firearms.

Neighborhoods are being "terrorized" because law abiding citizens are losing their right to legally obtain a firearm to defend themselves against criminals.

Passing more laws will not stop the criminals because they are already criminals. Instead it will just take away more rights from the law abiding citizens.

I really don't know where most of the anti-gun crowd gets its info but its dead wrong.

Bloomberg is going after distributers who illegally look the other way when selling to criminals. These people need to be punished;allowing more disclosure of gun sales to the police force will help do that.

Also, by making assult rifles and semiautomatics illegal, the availability will dwindle for criminals. You will never be able to totally cut off the supply, but you can at least make sure that less of these weapons are on the street aiming at the heads of law enforcement.

Finally, Criminals will not be deterred when you're carrying a small pistol, and they're sporting the newest shiny assault rifle.You can't expect every citizen to own multiple guns. Heck, many don't even own a single one! Putting a gun in everyone's hands can also lead to consequences. There will be more gang violence, walking at night without a gun will be dangerous, tempers may flare and the unthinkable may happen.

I understand that people who live in rural areas without quick response from law enforcement may shy away from gun control, but it is vital in large cities.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: Hacp

Bloomberg is going after distributers who illegally look the other way when selling to criminals. These people need to be punished;allowing more disclosure of gun sales to the police force will help do that.

Also, by making assult rifles and semiautomatics illegal, the availability will dwindle for criminals. You will never be able to totally cut off the supply, but you can at least make sure that less of these weapons are on the street aiming at the heads of law enforcement.

Finally, Criminals will not be deterred when you're carrying a small pistol, and they're sporting the newest shiny assault rifle.You can't expect every citizen to own multiple guns. Heck, many don't even own a single one! Putting a gun in everyone's hands can also lead to consequences. There will be more gang violence, walking at night without a gun will be dangerous, tempers may flare and the unthinkable may happen.

I understand that people who live in rural areas without quick response from law enforcement may shun gun control, but it is vital in large cities.


Allowing more disclosure of legal gun buyers once again doesn't help stop criminals who generally obtain weapons illegaly. The police having "a list" is kinda scary. Illinois State Police have already made visits to citizens trying to voice their opinions in a peaceful manner to state legislators.

Criminals do not typically use semi automatic rifles to commit crimes. I don't think I've ever read a story about street gangs using rifles for their killings. They use $100 pistols.

Owning multiple guns does not increase your chance of protection. You can only shoot one at a time.

Concealed carry owners account for roughly .3% of crime involving a firearm. The typical law abiding CCW is not a criminal and doesn't just break out in random violence. Once again, criminals do not follow the laws anyways, so they wont be the type of person that obtains a carry permit.

You sound like you bought into the last assault weapon ban which other then the 10-round magazine limit only banned cosmetic changes to rifles!

The goal isn't to arm 100% of the population, but instead offer American citizens the choice to responsibly and legally carry a firearm in public and own whatever type of firearm.

Once again, banning handguns in large cities simply hasn't worked. How do you explain Chicago? One of the highest murder rates in the US. Since handguns are banned entirely at this point, every single handgun murder is committed with an illegal firearm. A recent alderman was caught (and let off) with a revolver in her bedroom closet, for guess what, home protection!
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: loki8481
I'm sure someone will quote me on this and make me look like a fool in a few months, but right now, I believe him when he says he's not running for president (though maybe senate if hillary wins?)

Bloomie has laid out the circumstances under which he would make a run. It has a little to do with who the parties pick to run. The biggest part of that list was to raise $1 BEEEELION dollars in cash to run his campaign with.

Put this into perspective... All of the candidates and special interest groups (Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn, etc) in the 2004 elections from the primaries through the general election COMBINED, spent $1,020,000,000. Bloomie plans to spend all of that on himself.

Now... he's talking about entering the race IF the two parties nominate (or look like they may nominate) exteremists. This means that he is going to hold off on an announcement, or outrught deny he is running until after the party races are all but decided (probably 60-90 days before the conventions).

So... With about 5-6 months left before the election he enters the race and dumps a BILLION dollars into a market place. You're going to think that Bloomie is the only guy running. His face wlill be everywhere. Add to that the fact that everyone will be exhausted and completely bored with the candidates they have to choose from. Some of these guys have been running for over two years - people have their stump speeches memorized by now. They won't be saying anything we haven't heard a million times already.

I'm not saying I'd vote for the guy. But it's a stroke of brilliance. Be the exciting new guy in the race with a short time to go. Overwhelm the market. With that kind of money you could buy a half hour a week in primetime on all three networks at the same time. And most of all... put yourself right in the middle of the race, politically speaking. Divide and conquer.

He's running alright. But his run only works if he uses a total blitzkreig campaign. If it appears that he's running too early it won't work. He's playing a sneaky game. He's getting his ducks in a row. He is going to deny his possible candidacy till the very end. But he's running. I don't see how he won't.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Hacp

Why would gun regulation be bad? Is it a bad thing to make gun distributers more accountable? Should known criminals be able to purchase guns on a whim? Would you not feel safter if Assault Rifles and Semi Automatics were taken off the streets?

I don't think Bloomberg is targeting law abiding farmer Joe who owns a shotgun and a small pistol here. He's out to get organized crime, people who use these weapons to terrorize neighborhoods and kill our brave men and women in the police force.

Gun registration leads to gun confiscation 100% of the time.

Gun distributors are already extremely accountable. Having held an FFL in my lifetime, I can tell you that there is a ton of paperwork involved in the distribution of guns.

In my opinion, a free man should have all the rights of any other free man. I think it's ridiculous that we permanently revoke constitutional rights of people who were once convicted of a crime. Frankly, if society doesn't trust them enough to let them purchase a firearm legally, they shouldn't be let out of prison at all. But as it stands, convicted felons cannot legally purchase firearms from a FFL.

I would feel safer with a select fire assault rifle in every home, with every person trained for a couple hours in it's use. Ever hear of a mass killing at an army base? Nope.

Bloomberg was threatening gun dealers with civil litigation after his agents broke the law by tricking the dealers into selling them firearms. None of his litigation was actually successful, it was just a stunt. And it was illegal. The BATFE sent him a letter of warning, and those operations have since stopped.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Hacp
Bloomberg is going after distributers who illegally look the other way when selling to criminals. These people need to be punished;allowing more disclosure of gun sales to the police force will help do that.

Also, by making assult rifles and semiautomatics illegal, the availability will dwindle for criminals. You will never be able to totally cut off the supply, but you can at least make sure that less of these weapons are on the street aiming at the heads of law enforcement.

Finally, Criminals will not be deterred when you're carrying a small pistol, and they're sporting the newest shiny assault rifle.You can't expect every citizen to own multiple guns. Heck, many don't even own a single one! Putting a gun in everyone's hands can also lead to consequences. There will be more gang violence, walking at night without a gun will be dangerous, tempers may flare and the unthinkable may happen.

I understand that people who live in rural areas without quick response from law enforcement may shy away from gun control, but it is vital in large cities.

Bloomberg sent people in to buy guns for other people. This is called a straw purchase. It is illegal to be on either end of a known straw purchase (buyer or seller.) His people lied to the gun dealers to get them to break the law, while breaking the law themselves. It was a fiasco. Nothing really came of it.

The police don't need to know who has guns, who has pencils or who has a cordless keyboard. Personal property is not public business. The police aren't the boss of anyone.

"Assault weapons" are almost never used in crimes. The assault weapon ban had no discernable effect on crime. Handguns are used almost exclusively in crimes because they're concealable and easy to use in confined areas.

Making semi-automatics illegal would make outlaws out of tens of millions of americans. They simply wouldn't turn them in. And you'd have hundreds of millions of illegal guns floating around the country, now less trackable than they were before, by the way.

Plus there's no way to cut off the supply to criminals. In my day I've seen dozens of illegal post-1986 machine guns in civilian hands. Machine guns are one of the most heavily regulated things in America. But you can easily get an illegal one if you want one. Hell, the ATF ceases about 10 Rocket propelled grenade launchers every year. We can't keep illegal immigrants out of this country. We can't keep machine guns out. Criminals can get whatever they want. You'd only be disarming the good guys.

Again, criminals don't carry assault rifles. It attracts a lot of attention, something criminals don't like to do. I don't fear a criminal with an assault rifle, I fear a criminal with a handgun or a knife. And you have an unreasonable fear of guns in everyone's hands. Again, police stations, army bases, shooting ranges. How often are people shot at these places? Never.

More guns has no impact on gang violence. If people want to hurt each other, they will. With bats, knives or guns.

Walking at night without a gun is dangerous now. I would feel safer if more people had concealed handguns.

You talk about the police and law enforcement as if they'll protect you. They won't. It's not their job. They have no obligation to protect individuals. They investigate crimes and arrest criminals. Your defense is up to you.

Gun control has failed miserably in pretty much all large cities excluding Boston (where guns aren't illegal, but gun buybacks are held frequently.) Look at the violence levels in Chicago, New Jersey, and New York City. People willing to break the law there still have guns.

Look at London. The violence levels are off the charts. People are being stabbed left and right. It's to the point where there's knife control. And to make a point, I visited London a couple years ago. Within 30 minutes of landing at London's Heathrow I had a Sig Sauer 228 9mm pistol, 2 loaded magazines and an inside the waistband holster for it. England has pretty much the most restrictive gun control in the world. Handguns are entirely illegal. And I, a foreigner in country for 30 minutes, easily obtained a handgun. So I hope you see my point, that those willing to violate the law (in this case, me) are easily able to obtain whatever they want, even in very heavily controlled environments.

Oh, I wasn't stabbed or mugged in England, nor did I ever have to draw my weapon. The couple across the hall from me in the hotel were robbed at knifepoint though.
 

highwire

Senior member
Nov 5, 2000
363
0
76
Good 2nd amendment post, Nebor.

BTW, would a candidate who believed there was actually a 10th amendment be considered an extremist, too?